Allowed

Soumik Mallick v. Souvik Mallick

Calcutta HC16 Jul 2024CO/1443/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against a trial court order refusing a judgment on admissions in a partition suit. Both parties admitted equal half shares by pleadings. The High Court held Order 12 Rule 6 CPC required a judgment on admission without waiting for determination of other questions, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Trial Judge to act accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.03.2022 set aside; Trial Judge directed to decide under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in light of this Court's observations.

Soumik Mallick Vs Souvik Mallick — Partition | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

Item 16.07. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA No. 2024 CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION 33 APPELLATE SIDE Ct 22 C.O. 1443 of 2022 rup

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

Sri Soumik Mallick Vs Sri Souvik Mallick

¶4

Mr. M Rahman, Mr. Sankar Paul, Ms. Shipra Roy, Mr. Soumyashis Sarkar. … for the petitioner. Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal, Mrs. Paulami Chakraborty, Mr. Samrat Chakraborty. …. For the opposite party.

¶5

This revisional application has been filed assailing the Order No. 07 dated 31^st March, 2022 passed in connection with Title Suit No. 115 of 2021 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Katwa, Purba Bardhaman, wherein learned Judge disposed of the application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure holding, inter alia, virtually, that in spite of admission by the pleadings, evidence is required to pass a judgment on admission in preliminary form in the partition suit pending between the parties.

¶6

Mr. M Rahman, learned counsel appearing on

¶7

¶8

behalf of the petitioner/defendant has drawn my attention to the plaint and written statement filed by the parties before the Trial Court and submitted that both the parties to the suit admitted that suit property previously belonged to Jyotsna Mallick, grandmother of the parties to this suit and she gifted away about her entire suit property to the plaintiff and defendant by registered deed of gift and thereby both the plaintiff and the defendant became joint owner of the suit property having 8 anns shares in each.

¶9

According to Mr. Rahaman, learned Trial Judge ought to have invoked the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure by drawing up a preliminary decree in the partition suit.

¶10

Per contra, Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/plaintiff has submitted before this Court that recording of evidence is required in spite of admission of share of the parties by the pleadings. In support of his contention he referred to the other averments of the pleadings and submitted that there is a dispute regarding possession over the suit property.

¶11

Mr. Sanyal has further submitted that there is a tenancy in the suit property in the ground floor of

¶12

¶13

the premises.

¶14

Before delving into the merit I would like to reproduce the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure which runs as follows:

¶15

Judgment on admissions. (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

¶16

(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.”

¶17

On careful scrutiny of the provision, I find that intention of the legislature behind this enactment is to assist the Court for speedy disposal of the suit. The words “without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties” mandates a direction upon the Court to pass judgment on admission.

¶18

The partition suit is pending between the parties and both the parties by filing their respective pleadings admitted the half share of the parties over the suit property and in that case, particularly considering the nature of the suit, I am of the humble view that the learned Trial

¶19

¶20

Judge ought to have invoked the provision of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties regarding possession.

¶21

Given facts and circumstances, the order impugned stands set aside.

¶22

The revisional application stands allowed with a direction upon the learned Trial Judge to pass order keeping an eye on the observation of this Court in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶23

With this observation, the revisional application stands disposed of.

¶24

Connected applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶25

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court

¶26

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.

¶27

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)

¶28

Soumik Mallick v. Souvik Mallick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soumik Mallick v. Souvik Mallick

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subham Sen Vs Sewita Nandi Alias Sonali Nandi

Sarbosri Roychowdhury Vs Chandana Roy Chowdhury& Ors.

Dipak J. Popat and Ors. Vs M/S Aisatic Udyog

Shankar Prasad Agarwal Vs Om Prakash Agarwal and Ors.

S.A.H. Construction Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Manjulika a Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. Vs Sumit Deb